Right Wing Nut House

“Oh, George. I wish I had kissed the Sonuvabitch.”
(Patton reflecting on the consequences of striking a soldier suffering from PTSD.)

There is little doubt that Don Imus deserves to be fired. The problem is he has deserved it for going on 25 years. A major contributor to the toxicity of our culture, Imus has frolicked in the sewer of American entertainment, making a living being pointlessly hurtful and hateful to every ethnic and racial group in America. His targets in the past have included the Jews, Hispanics, Italians, Arabs, Catholics, evangelical Christians, and Muslims, to name a few. And he has gotten away with it because people recognize that he is doing it for purposes of “entertainment.”

Playing to stereotypes is a dangerous game and Imus (and his chief enabler and cheerleader, producer Bernard McGuirk), skirt the edge of outright hate speech constantly, settling for drawing broad analogies and using code words that allow their slack jawed fans to create their own punchlines. This gimmicky approach to practicing bigotry without actually crossing the line earned the radio host a huge following during the crucial morning drive time in most major markets and a sizable audience on television via MSNBC.

Now having finally crossed the Rubicon of racist caricature, it appears he is about ready to lose it all:

NBC News dropped Don Imus yesterday, canceling his talk show on its MSNBC cable news channel a week after he made a racially disparaging remark about the Rutgers University women’s basketball team.

The move came after several days of widening calls for Mr. Imus to lose his show both on MSNBC, which simulcasts the “Imus in the Morning” show, and CBS Radio, which originates the show.

CBS Radio, which is the main employer of Mr. Imus, said in a statement last night that it would stick by the two-week suspension of the show that it and NBC News announced earlier; the suspension begins Monday.

But CBS said it would, in the interim, “continue to speak with all concerned parties and monitor the situation closely.”

The demands that Mr. Imus’s show be canceled have grown in intensity every day since last Wednesday when he made the comments, in which he labeled the women “nappy-headed hos.”

The gutless wonders at CBS who have their finger in the wind seeing if the controversy will die down over the next two weeks are a perfect example of why Imus was allowed to get away with his hate shtick. The fact is, he is wildly popular and makes money for those who employ him. On that basis alone, he has been given a pass that politicians, athletes, actors, musicians, and other public figures never seem to get when it comes to inappropriate speech. And here is where the market forces that drive the entertainment industry actually work to bring the culture down to the level of the gutter. We are told that sex, violence, perversion, and the general coarseness of our popular culture is the result of our own choices, that if people wanted more elevating fare they would demand it.

This may be true to a large extent. But it is also true that even with a veritable cornucopia of choices available on television, the internet, the movie theater, and radio, along with satellite outlets such as DVD’s, CD’s, and gaming, the ever shrinking number of corporations who control all of this media fail to offer much in the way of alternatives. The odd family show on television or small number of G-rated movies released every year reveal the fact that our media gatekeepers simply don’t try very hard.

In a perfect world, edifying and uplifting fare would if not dominate all aspects of our culture, they would certainly compete equally for dollars and viewership. Not living in a perfect world instead gives us Howard Stern who at first, tried to “out-Imus” Imus until he settled into his own brand of sexually charged, off the wall rantings against gays and racial minorities. The fact that he is now on a pay service doesn’t minimize his impact on a specific segment of the population - 18 to 25 year old males. Stern’s objectification of the female body, his leering references to lesbianism, and his ignorant political diatribes are gobbled up by the most impressionable of audiences. His estimated 5 million listeners on Sirius radio pay for the privilege of listening to this weirdo - a sure sign either in the efficacy of capitalism or that civilization is coming to an end.

Beyond the hate and the prurience, there is a general coarseness to our culture that leaves those who consume its fruits at times feeling unclean. I enjoy movies with lots of explosions and death as much as anyone. But there are times that I come away feeling as if I had wallowed in a pool of blood, so ultra violent and utterly devoid of social value much of this fare offers. The Kill Bill films are a good example. Hugely entertaining because they tell an interesting story populated with interesting characters, the gore and casual attitude toward spilling blood nevertheless made it much the guilty pleasure.

To be a critic and a lover of popular culture is not so much a dichotomy as it is a realistic response to the world in which we live. But the Imus’s of this world are different. Quentin Tarrantino may have made the Bill movies for the same reason Imus seeks to shock and titillate his audiences - for the dollars. But Tarrantino’s is a stylized violence - an artistic artifact that reveals a larger truth than the simple sum of the film’s parts. For Imus, he shocks simply because he is able to. This truly places him in a cultural gutter along with rape pornographers, some rap artists, , and others who seek to manipulate the emotions of their audience in order to elicit a base emotional.

Imus should have been fired long ago. Perhaps the action taken by MSNBC will dampen the enthusiasm of the “shock jocks” who seek to skirt the edge of propriety all in the name of listeners and ad revenue.

But I wouldn’t count on it.

Now we know why Pelosi was wearing that head scarf in Damascus yesterday. It wasn’t in deference to Muslim tradition. It was to keep her brains from dribbling out of her ears:

The Prime Minister’s Office issued a rare “clarification” Wednesday that, in gentle diplomatic terms, contradicted US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s statement in Damascus that she had brought a message from Israel about a willingness to engage in peace talks.

According to the statement, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert emphasized in his meeting with Pelosi on Sunday that “although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the Axis of Evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East.”

Olmert, the statement clarified, told Pelosi that Syria’s sincerity about a genuine peace with Israel would be judged by its willingness to “cease its support of terror, cease its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain from providing weapons to Hizbullah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon, cease its support of terror in Iraq, and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the extremist regime in Iran.”

The statement said Olmert had not communicated to Pelosi any change in Israeli policy on Damascus.

Obviously, she should have tied the scarf a little tighter given the copious amounts of gray matter that must have oozed out during her visit to the Middle East. Or perhaps she should have used a tin foil hat:

Pelosi, who met in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar Assad over the objections of US President George W. Bush, said she brought a message to Assad from Olmert saying that Israel was ready for peace talks.

“We were very pleased with the reassurances we received from the president [Assad] that he was ready to resume the peace process. He was ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel,” Pelosi said after meeting Assad.

She said the meeting with the Syrian leader “enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well.”

According to officials in the Prime Minister’s Office, however, this was not what transpired during her meeting with Olmert.

Anyone who believes any “assurances” from that murderous thug Assad obviously needs some additional Reynolds Wrap on their tin foil beanie to deflect all the rays marked “stupid” from penetrating their skull.

Assad has given Lebanon all sorts of “assurances” that he will respect their independence and not assassinate their citizens on a regular basis. The killing of the beloved Pierre Gemayal last November would seem to give the lie to the latter. And as for the former, Assad is working closely with his Hizbullah allies to bring about a return of Syrian domination of the tiny country.

Hey! But he’s talking to a liberal Democrat so he must be telling the truth, right? Because our Nancy is so good, so pure in motive, so…so…EARNEST, she can charm the hair off of an orangutan . And the fact that both Assad and Pelosi hate Bush with a passion probably gave them a lot of common ground to reflect upon.

Someone get Matt Stoller an oxygen mask. This breathless paean to Pelosi is so off the mark that it should be listed under “wishful thinking” rather than any kind of serious analysis:

Pelosi, in going to Syria, and in telling Bush to calm down, is looking much more like a President than Bush is. Bush is even having his role as commander-in-chief challenged, by both his own ineptitude and the public’s willingness to strip him of power. By default, that power is slowly bleeding over to Pelosi, Reid, and whichever member of Congress is leading that day and filling the massive void Bush has left. This is not an ideal scenario, but it’s the one that Bush set himself up for when he refused to acknowledge the results of the 2006 elections and what that meant for his method of governance.

He may hold the constitutional office, but he is less and less the President every day. He can still do a lot of damage, but we are increasingly going to see leaders like Pelosi in positions of authority. Power abhors a vacuum, which is why Pelosi looks like a President today.

Bush may not be able to set the agenda anymore. But to doubt the power of the veto pen is stupid. And by his own admission, Bush can still “start wars” - a not inconsequential power that would bolster his standing among Americans (at least temporarily) if the President were to be dumb enough to attack Iran; something I don’t think is in the cards for the foreseeable future.

And as far as Bush’s powers as commander in chief being “stripped,” perhaps Mr. Stoller might offer an example other than the sure to be vetoed war spending bill which also is a rock solid certainty of the veto being upheld. And any attempt to cut off funds for Iraq entirely will result in a smashing, humiliating defeat for the Democrats. So unless we have some other example of Bush losing his power as Commander in Chief, perhaps Stoller should just put a sock in it.

The Washington Post also wonders where Pelosi’s brains have gone:

Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration — rightly or wrongly — has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker’s freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That’s true enough — but those other congressmen didn’t try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. “We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace,” Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president.

The Post is too kind. Why is this so surprising? The Democrats have sought to undermine this President’s foreign policy almost from day one. They have ridiculed his support of democratic reforms in the Middle East. They have undercut his authority by making the wildest, most baseless charges about why we are fighting in Iraq. They have gone to tremendous lengths to even question his legitimacy by constantly posing the most outrageous conspiracy theories about “stolen elections” - despite the fact that independent forums have confirmed the President’s victory in 2000 and only the looniest of Democrats actually believe that the 2004 election was won by Kerry.

There is much to criticize in the Bush presidency - a lackadaisical attitude toward important issues, cronyism (which certainly leads to questions of competence), an overarching drive to politicize government, and a reliance on loyalty as a determining factor in personnel decisions - to name a few.

But Pelosi’s performance in Syria - played to the hilt by the Syrian press who didn’t mention any of Pelosi’s traveling companions or any of the Republican lawmakers who also visited Assad - proves that she is a not ready for prime time national leader. Her egregious error in misinterpreting Prime Minister Olmert’s “message” and her jaw dropping myopia about Assad’s “assurances” brand her as an amateur’s amateur.

As long as she’s wearing the scarf, perhaps we should tell her to “Get Thee to a Nunnery.” Anything would be better than the disaster she’s already perpetrated and the confusion she’s already sown.

UPDATE

The normally placid Ed Morrissey has some tough words for the Democrats:

The Democrats, led by Pelosi, have tried to undermine Bush for years. Now that they have the majority in Congress, they can give full vent to their schemes. The efforts of the past couple of months show that the Democrats want to turn the Constitution upside down, strip the executive branch of its power, and make Congress the supreme power in the American system.

Well, sorry, but that’s the British system. Perhaps Pelosi would be more comfortable there or in Canada, but here in the US, the elected President has all of the Constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy and command the military. That remains true even when Congress dislikes the policies in both areas. If the Democrats want a new foreign policy, then let them nominate someone who can articulate one that the American people support, and stop nominating appeasers and vacillators.

Perhaps the Democrats should think very seriously about substituting the ostrich for the donkey as a mascot for their party.

It certainly would make more sense after House Armed Service Committee members decided to ban the use of the phrase “War on Terror:”

The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.

This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee’s Democratic leadership doesn’t like the phrase.

A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and “avoid using colloquialisms.”

The “global war on terror,” a phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., should not be used, according to the memo. Also banned is the phrase the “long war,” which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years.

Committee staff members are told in the memo to use specific references to specific operations instead of the Bush administration’s catch phrases. The memo, written by Staff Director Erin Conaton, provides examples of acceptable phrases, such as “the war in Iraq,” the “war in Afghanistan, “operations in the Horn of Africa” or “ongoing military operations throughout the world.”

“There was no political intent in doing this,” said a Democratic aide who asked not to be identified. “We were just trying to avoid catch phrases.”

The problem isn’t that the “War on Terror” doesn’t describe the nature of our conflict with radical Islamism. We’ve heard it repeated ad nauseam that terror is a tactic, not an ideology. And this is true to a large extent.

But the problem with this change in nomenclature is that the “War on Terror” was a phrase that made it absolutely clear that the conflict was both global in nature and that all of the “operations” the Democrats are now going to list separately had an interconnectedness to them, that they were part of a united effort against a common enemy. And since both political correctness and strategic necessity disallowed the obvious alternative to “War on Terror” - that being, a “War Against Radical Islam” - supporters of the war found themselves hamstrung in what else to call the conflict.

Some military people began to refer to the war as “The Long War” which was accurate as far as it goes but much less descriptive. Now apparently, the Democrats have simply abandoned the idea of a general war at all and will pigeonhole each operation as separate and unrelated to any other operation underway around the world.

This is the culmination of nearly 6 long years of work by Democrats to banish 9/11 as a seminal date in history; that America was a different place after the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans than it was before.

And the reason the Democrats have been so anxious to change the dynamic regarding the “War on Terror” is shockingly political; they see a huge advantage accrue to the Republicans as a result of the attacks on this country and have been seeking for 6 years to destroy that advantage. Despite a transparent attempt to change the narrative of 9/11 to reflect badly on the President, to this day the President’s performance on 9/11 and the days following is seen as the highlight of his presidency by the majority of Americans. Unable to undermine history by substituting their own cockeyed narrative of the events on that day and immediately after, the Democrats are doing the next best thing; they are trying to remove the impact of 9/11 on our military and foreign policy and the subsequent decisions made by the President to fight Islamic radicalism all over the world.

And lest anyone think that this isn’t almost entirely about politics, House staffers makes it plain as day:

Committee aides, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said dropping or reducing references to the global war on terror could have many purposes, including an effort to be more precise about military operations, but also has a political element involving a disagreement over whether the war in Iraq is part of the effort to combat terrorism or is actually a distraction from fighting terrorists.

House Democratic leaders who have been pushing for an Iraq withdrawal timetable have talked about the need to get combat troops out of Iraq so they can be deployed against terrorists in other parts of the world, while Republicans have said that Iraq is part of the front line in the war on terror. Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the armed services committee chairman, has been among those who have complained that having the military tied up with Iraq operations has reduced its capacity to respond to more pressing problems, like tracking down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

At the moment, the only other place to deploy troops is Afghanistan - a hypocritical idea since the Europeans aren’t pulling their weight as it is and such a move would give the lie to the Democrats oft repeated criticism that Bush is all too willing to go it alone when it comes to the conflict formerly known as The War on Terror.

The Washington Times hits the nail on the head:

This is yet another sign that the Democrats are going hard-left on national-security issues generally and not just on Iraq — in this instance, trying to airbrush away the very war on terrorism from our most basic defense legislation.

This is also hypocrisy, simple and rank — the sort that causes us to question motives. There is no other conclusion given that the phrase “war on terror” still has its uses for some Democratic lawmakers. One of them is Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, who chairs the House Armed Services Committee and is ultimately responsible for these directives. “Today, we are in the midst of a long struggle against the evil of terrorism,” reads his press release commemorating the fifth anniversary of the September 11, 2001. Iraq is “separate and distinct from the war on terrorism,” which, according to the Ike Skelton responsible for the Sept. 3, 2006, release, still retains merit. Of course, this document is intended for public consumption. It is only secondarily a means of cudgeling Mr. Bush.

Which is it, Mr. Skelton? A catch-phrase or a long struggle? We suppose it depends on whom you’re talking to.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be so taken aback. Many Democrats have been uncomfortable with “war on terrorism” for its alleged bellicosity, its lack of “nuance” and its clarity on whom the bad guys are. Above all, they dislike its close association with the presidency of George W. Bush.

No doubt that “close association” with Bush is one the major reasons for the change. From a party that has portrayed this president as more dangerous than terrorists; a Hitler, a stupid ox (while at the same time attributing Machiavellian achievements to him), and the greatest threat to civil liberties and liberal democracy in American history, removing part of his legacy would seem to be the least they can do to stick it to him.

I suspect that this directive will be honored in the breach and many Democrats of the Blue Dog stripe will continue to use the term “War on Terror” to describe the long, twilight struggle against radical Islam. And since global operations against terrorism will continue regardless of what Democrats call it (at least until a liberal democrat is elected President), it might be fun to watch Democrats twist themselves into knots trying to describe an operation that targets the financial reserves of the Philippine terrorist organization Abu Sayyaf Group while using Special Forces to interdict bombs and bomb making materials from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) whose links to the Indonesian group Jemaah Islamiah are well established. In the meantime, American FBI and CIA scour the back alleys and slums of Asian cities looking to break the links that bind all those groups together.

Yeah…but don’t call it a “Global War on Terror.”

Dear Senator Harry,

As for my next trip, I hear Iran is lovely this time of year . . .

There are times when I go a little overboard in my condemnation of the left. My excuse is that they are such ridiculously easy targets for ridicule and spite that I just can’t help myself. The venom and vinegar that pour forth from this site directed at liberals is simply a matter of taking an easy out and letting common sense and logic take their course and effortlessly reveal the stupidites and inanities of the left in all their glory. I hardly break a sweat most of the time.

But every once and a while, I come across something so outrageous, so ridiculous, so unsettling in its denial of reality that the words simply won’t come. Try as I might, I can’t conjure up the outrage, the humor, or the snark to describe what some nitwit on the left has written. Usually, it’s Lambchop who elicits this kind of response. For sheer hyperbole, hysteria, exaggeration, and hate, there are few who can match Mr. Ellison.

But we have a new entry in the Idiot Sweepstakes. This post by Phoenix Woman at Firedoglake is an updated version of an article she evidently wrote a while ago:

Ever wonder how the last six-odd years might have gone, had all the votes been counted in 2000?

I’d like to think that they might have gone something like this…

I know, I know. Liberals aren’t satisfied until all of their votes are counted at least twice. And the military overseas? “Out of site, out of luck” is an adage liberals all but spit in the face of our soldiers serving outside of the United States. So much for counting all the votes.

But I challenge you to follow that link above and read the post without your jaw hitting the floor and an unnerving feeling overtake you that suicide might actually be a viable option as opposed to having to finish this…this…

No words.

December 1, 2000: After a night on the town and too much lobster in champagne sauce, Sandra Day O’Connor has a horrifically vivid dream of how the ascension of George W. Bush to the Oval Office would mean the destruction of the American economy, the senseless deaths of hundreds of thousands of people worldwide, the loss of American prestige both at home and abroad, and — worst of all — the utter dissolution of her beloved Republican Party as, upon being deserted by even the corporate media, it suffers a series of definitive electoral ass-kickings in 2006, 2008, and 2010 before giving up the ghost. She goes on to provide the swing vote that allows the Florida count to continue, thus guaranteeing that Al Gore’s election is confirmed. Media pundits attack O’Connor so viciously that she decides to retire three weeks later…

February through April, 2001: The members of the Republican Congress, with the US corporate media backing them up, start a barrage of conservative legislation — tax cuts for the rich, gutting environmental laws, et cetera — that they plan to browbeat Gore into signing. President Gore vetoes each bill and the vetoes are sustained. He is called “obstructionist” by Tucker Carlson, Robert Novak, and the spokespersons of the Heritage Foundation, the Club for Growth, and the American Nazi Party…

May 5, 2001: National Security chief Sandy Berger, at the urging of his staffers John O’Neill and Richard Clarke, presents President Gore with a PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) warning of imminent plans by bin Laden to attack New York, America’s financial center, with hijacked commercial jets used as flying bombs. The suspicion is that Al-Qaeda will try to succeed where they had failed eight years earlier and attack the World Trade Center. Gore consults with former Senators Gary Hart (D-CO) and Warren Rudman (R-NH), who chaired a terrorism commission formed by President Clinton in the late 1990s; they concur with the PDB’s findings.

After some heroic countermoves, we come to 9/11:

August - early September, 2001: Dozens of students at flight schools are arrested in a major FBI operation. Thirteen of these students turn out to be directly involved in what will come to be called “the September Plot”.

September 11, 2001: At the Houston, LAX and Minneapolis International airports, seven Saudi and Algerian men were forbidden from boarding their flights after airport security personnel found box cutters, wire and other banned items on their persons. These men turn out to be the remnants of the band of Al-Qaeda’s September Plotters; all the others had been caught in the FBI’s sweep of the flight schools.

Armed with this evidence, Gore demands and gets Congressional authorization to send US troops to Afghanistan. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough ridicules the idea that “idiots with box cutters” could take over an airliner. Rush Limbaugh claims that “Gore is sending our young men and women off on a wild goose chase.” Bill O’Reilly, William Kristol, and Ann Coulter demand that Gore invade Iraq, even though none of the would-be hijackers is Iraqi or has any connection to Iraq or to Saddam Hussein.

September 12, 2001: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan agrees to a call by Madeline Albright, US Ambassdor to the UN, for an international force to enter Afghanistan to root out Al-Qaeda. France and Britain, whose intelligence services have worked closely with US intelligence agencies, strongly back the Gore Administration’s position as copious evidence of planned Al-Qaeda attacks in Europe has come to light. To buttress further the case for invasion, well-documented human rights abuses committed by Afghanistan’s Taliban government, which is allied with Al-Qaeda, are brought forth as evidence.

PNAC’s Donald Rumsfeld, while taking care not to seem to oppose the planned intervention in Afghanistan, goes onto Rush Limbaugh’s radio program to complain that even though Afghanistan’s terrain is ruggedly mountainous and therefore has proved to be historically less vulnerable to aerial attacks than other, flatter nations, recent developments in high-tech weaponry mean that the US need not send quite so many troops Kabul’s way — and besides, the real problem is in Iraq!

September 16, 2001: 150,000 UN-led troops, 100,000 of whom are US forces, leave for Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein, who as a secularist Muslim leader despises Osama bin Laden and is in any event eager to get back in the world’s good graces, assists in setting up staging areas in Iraq for the UN. In Teheran, Iran’s moderate leadership, which needs the help of the world community in beating back the conservative mullahs, agrees to let UN troops and planes pass through Iran unhindered.

It’s the “Al-Qaeda War.” And our buddy Saddam is so accomodating, no? Especially after Clinton bombed the sh*t out of him for 8 years.

One last jaw dropper:

December 15, 2004: In exchange for his aid in rooting out Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and his sons Uday and Qusay are encouraged by Gore and by former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter to work out a plan for Iraq’s transition to a secular democracy after Hussein’s death, with Hussein and his sons in pivotal roles on the democracy commission. American conservatives immediately decry this as “appeasement”, whereas Iraq-based observers congratulate Gore, Clinton and Carter for working on a plan to stave off the horrifically bloody civil war that would likely follow Saddam’s death or removal from power.

As I said. No. Words.

PELOSI: Britain? “Great” Britain? I seem to remember reading something about them when I was a little girl. Weren’t we allies or some such in a war or something? I always wanted to be a princess when I grew up.

The fact that House Democrats excused themselves from history by deliberately adjourning for a little spring break without expressing any sentiment whatsoever of support for the 15 British sailors languishing in capitivity shouldn’t surprise us. This is the gang that likes to write little love notes to the terrorists, insurgents, and unreconstructed Baathists in Iraq telling them the date certain the US military won’t be around to kill them anymore. Why should they bother sending a message to Iran expressing any kind of displeasure whatsoever with the dirty necked galoots who are holding the military personnel of our most important ally hostage?

Members of the House left Washington on Friday for their two-week spring break without weighing in on the international crisis tormenting the nation’s closest ally: the capture of 15 British sailors and marines by Iran.

The omission by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is being noted by some Republicans, who say they should have gotten the chance to join the Senate in denouncing Tehran’s bold actions.

“I am very disappointed that the speaker chose not to act,” said Rep. Charles Dent, R-Pa.

“I believe it’s important for us as Americans to show our solidarity with the Britons,” he added in a phone interview Friday. “The British are our closest allies, and I think we have to stand next to them in a moment like this.”

The Senate on Thursday, before adjourning for its one-week break, passed a resolution condemning the act “in the strongest possible terms” and calling for the sailors “immediate, safe and unconditional release.”

Maybe the Democrats are still mad at the Brits for burning Washington during the War of 1812. Seems an awful long time to hold a grudge. President Madison, of course, was a Democrat. Perhaps that matters to the hyper-partisans who masquerade as lawmakers.

Seriously, it’s not really a mystery why Speaker Pelosi refused to consider condemning Iran for their outrageous violation of international law. She didn’t want any unpleasantries to interfere with her photo op in Damascus with President Bashar Assad of Syria. It might have been awkward talking with Iran’s number one ally in the region if she had just come from a House session taking them to task for acting beastly to the Brits:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will visit Syria, a country President Bush has shunned as a sponsor of terrorism, despite being asked by the administration not to go.
“In our view, it is not the right time to have these sort of high- profile visitors to Syria,” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters Friday.

Pelosi arrived in Israel on Friday in what is her second fact-finding trip to the Middle East since taking over leadership in the House in January.

Her repeat trip, an indication she plans to play a role in foreign policy, is also a direct affront to the administration, which says such diplomatic overtures by lawmakers can do more harm than good.

Yes, let’s “affront” the Administration by running into the arms of Syria and talking to the man who, while she is sitting in his parlor drinking tea, is attempting to destroy democracy and gobble up his tiny next door neighbor Lebanon. Better to make Bush look bad than do the decent, honorable thing and shun the beast who orders the assassination of Lebanese democrats whose only sin is standing up to their Syrian tormenters while Assad foments civil strife to create an excuse for his tanks to roll back into Beirut.

It’s pretty clear Pelosi eschewed a resolution of support for the Brits because it may have upset her little Damascus tea party with Assad. And despite the fact she will not change the relationship between the US and Syria one iota by her grandstanding, she does send a disappointing message to our ally; politics trumps loyalty. Better to thumb your nose at the President than stand shoulder to shoulder with a nation that has been at the side of the United States in every major conflict over the last century.

UPDATE

Ed Morrissey:

The Democratic leadership has once again demonstrated why no one took them seriously on foreign policy and national security for the last twenty years. It’s difficult to achieve this conjunction of idiocy in a single week, but Pelosi & Co have proven themselves just the idiots for the task.

Allah nails it - and Pelosi:

Mind you, Assad and his terror apparatus are also the prime suspects in the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, whose pro-western political heirs are currently deadlocked with Hezbollah in Lebanon. If she’s not loyal enough to her own country to refrain from handing one of its biggest enemies a propaganda windfall, you’d think she’d at least be decent enough not to legitimize a suspected killer under UN investigation by doing meet and greets with him.

Repulsive. As usual.

As it stands now, the performance of Rudy Guiliani on 9/11 is one of unquestioned courage and leadership. Images of Rudy striding down the streets of Manhattan as the world literally collapsed around him and appearing before the cameras as a calm, honest spokesman for not only the government of New York city but for the US government as well will be with us forever. Even the left grudgingly gave him high marks for his remarkable performance that day.

But as in all human endeavors - and indeed all human existence - there were mistakes, missteps, bad decisions, and pettiness. And the fact that government was involved means that there were bureaucratic turf battles, political considerations, and bad planning that, when they are examined (and you can count on them being thoroughly looked at during the campaign) will take some of the luster off of Rudy’s performance that day.

Certainly some of this is part of the process of vetting presidential candidates. The press feels an obligation to expose the worst in our next president - especially if he happens to be a Republican. But you can bet that the Democratic candidates will come in for their share of bad press although one gets the sense that the press doesn’t take quite the gleeful pleasure in exposing Democrats as they do in savaging Republicans.

In short, Rudy is about to have his 9/11 credentials wrung through the ringer. And for ammunition, the press need look no further than this book by reporters Wayne Barrett and Dan Collins.

Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11 claims to be meticulously researched and sourced. Not having read the book I can’t say. But this long excerpt from the book in Village Voice will give you an excellent idea where Rudy’s critics will take aim:

Giuliani has never acknowledged a single failing in his own performance. Yet he did nothing before September 11 to alleviate the effects of a terror attack. He embodied his city’s lack of preparation on West Street that morning. And he did not do anything later that matched the moments of grace and resolve he gave us the day we needed him most. What we have left is this: At a moment when the public needed a hero, Rudy Giuliani stepped forward. When he assured New York that things would come out all right, he was blessedly believable. It was a fine thing. But it was not nearly as much as we, at the time, imagined.

You really must read the whole thing to get a sense of the kinds of issues that the authors believe Rudy failed to address that day and the aftermath. But a short version is that Guiliani’s mistakes both prior to 9/11 and on that tragic day were magnified by the sin of hubris - overweening pride that prevented several key decisions from being made that would have saved lives. How the authors arrive at these conclusions is a mystery. And I’m sure you’ll end up reading some of their criticisms and wondering if anyone could have done any better considering the circumstances - something authors are clearly not interested in exploring. But what makes this critique of Guiliani’s performance so problematic for the Mayor is that Rudy, like John Kerry, is running using his past experience in the fires of tragedy as proof of his fitness for office - and not much else.

When you think about it, what else has Rudy got to offer in the way of experience? He’s never been to Congress. He never even served in the state legislature of New York. His experience outside of New York is confined to a stint as Associate Attorney General in Reagan’s Justice department - hardly a position that would inspire confidence in his abilities that would be translatable to the presidency.

Rudy was Mayor of New York city. And beyond that, he was Mayor of New York city on 9/11 for which he is properly considered a hero. But if the press starts to chip away at Rudy’s 9/11 personae, what we might find underneath will not be pretty nor attractive to the mostly conservative voters in Republican primaries.

What might the press find by reading the Barrett-Collins hit piece? This article by AP writer Larry McShane makes it clear that the top two issues that will play against Rudy’s 9/11 narrative are the communication’s snafu at Ground Zero that day which has been flogged by some widows and firefighters for years as well as Guiliani’s decision to shut down the meticulous search for bodies in November of 2001 when so many were still missing:

Giuliani, the leader in polls of Republican voters for his party’s nomination, has been faulted on two major issues:

• His administration’s failure to provide the World Trade Center’s first responders with adequate radios, a long-standing complaint from relatives of the firefighters killed when the twin towers collapsed. The Sept. 11 Commission noted the firefighters at the World Trade Center were using the same ineffective radios employed by the first responders to the 1993 terrorist attack on the trade center.

Regenhard, at a 2004 commission hearing in Manhattan, screamed at Giuliani, “My son was murdered because of your incompetence!” The hearing was a perfect example of the 9/11 duality: Commission members universally praised Giuliani at the same event.

• A November 2001 decision to step up removal of the massive rubble pile at ground zero. The firefighters were angered when the then-mayor reduced their numbers among the group searching for remains of their lost “brothers,” focusing instead on what they derided as a “scoop and dump” approach. Giuliani agreed to increase the number of firefighters at ground zero just days after ordering the cutback.

More than 5 1/2 years later, body parts are still turning up in the trade center site.

AJ Strata does a good job debunking these criticisms:

That (bad communications) was not caused by Rudy, but by the different police and fire bureaucracies which refused to integrate their purchasing. If a government entity at any level gives up the power to purchase it gives up authority. And so the firefighters and port authorities and city police and state police all refuse to coordinate their equipment. Many times their money comes from different sources, for instance state, city, county, various federal agencies. The Port authority would get Federal dollars from ICE or the Coast Guard and the cops from DoJ. This is not Rudy’s fault and even a bush-league reporter would know this is the case…

The decision (to step up removal of debris) was WEEKS into the clean up, not days or hours. And the problem here is the mound of debris was a festering health hazard. There was no time to pick delicately through the pile of rubble, within which the fires did not finally go out for MONTHS afterwards.

As for the first issue, Barrett and Collins point out that Rudy had ridden roughshod over many of those same bureaucracies during his terms in office and that the fact he didn’t butt a few heads together in order to get the firefighters and police modern communications was a failure of will on his part. Beyond that, the authors point out that Guiliani put the emergency management bunker at the World Trade Center - even after the towers had been attacked in 1993. Was this smart? The towers were centrally located and seemed a natural place to put the emergency bunker. But the authors are looking at Rudy’s decision from a post 9/11 world. The 9/10 world inhabited by Rudy and the rest of us would have seen the attack in 1993 as an aberration and not a harbinger of things to come. In that context, Rudy’s decision was probably the right one.

But don’t expect too many people to be giving Guiliani the benefit of the doubt once the stories start pouring out criticizing his performance on 9/11. There is also the real question of whether he should have been walking the streets in the first place. Why didn’t he head for the temporary emergency bunker where he could monitor communications? As he was walking around lower Manhattan, he was deaf and blind to what was going on at Ground Zero.

There’s also the question of why the police and fire chief met only once during the crisis and very briefly at that. Couldn’t many lives have been saved if the two were side by side, listening to their own people communicating since their equipment wouldn’t allow them to talk to each other? Could Rudy have ordered the two to stay close by?

Barrett and Collins raise a half dozen other issues - some of them germane, some silly - each of which will force Rudy on the defensive. Notoriously thin skinned, one wonders if the scrutiny becomes too intense if Rudy will be able to weather the public storms without lashing back. This, he must resist in that it will make people start to doubt Rudy’s own narrative of events.

For the moment, Guiliani basks in the glow of being the Republican front runner. But the appetite of the press for a horse race means that they will almost certainly begin to hammer away at Rudy’s version of what happened on 9/11. And how Rudy emerges from this scrutiny will determine whether or not he can go the distance and capture the nomination.

I’ve been following politics for going on 40 years and during that time, I have witnessed the high, the low, the principled and unprincipled, the sheer human drama of democracy’s workings on display in all of its glory and shame.

But what has made politics a lifelong fascination for me have been the men and women who perform its rituals, parading across the great national stage in Washington - some making their mark, others going through the motions hoping not to get anyone angry at them lest the voters toss them into the street come election time. There have been smooth operators like Mike Mansfield and George Mitchell - gentlemen of the Senate whose courtliness and sense of fairness reflected a simpler, less partisan culture on Capitol Hill.

There have been entertainers, clowns, statesmen, stirring orators and mumbling hacks. There have been brilliant legislators and sickening poseurs. Their have been true patriots and those who would use patriotism for political gain.

And then there are today’s Democrats.

I don’t quite know how to classify this gaggle of cynical, posturing, cowardly bunch of partisan witch hunters, devious machinators, vengeful charlatans, and craven caterers to their unhinged, out of control base. A biologist would probably settle on a taxonomy relating them to the Hydra - the nine headed poisonous serpent of Greek mythology whose very breath could kill a man at twenty paces.

Today’s Democrats are not a political party. They are an amalgam of grasping, conniving, pusillanimous misanthropes, kept together by threats and outright bribery using taxpayer monies. That and their unreasoning, viral hatred of the President of the United States seems to be what animates the overwhelming majority of their members. And they are being alternately cheered on and menaced by their rabid dog base of netnuts, socialists, greens, one worlders, and anti-military kooks who see political advantage in siding with our enemies in Iraq.

That last may be a little strong but it is hard to define their opposition to the war as anything else. They can’t claim to be standing on principle - not after those votes yesterday in the Senate and two days ago in the House where members were literally bribed with pork to support the leadership’s position on withdrawal from Iraq. They can’t claim to be supporting the troops - not after being told in no uncertain terms that their bill was subject to a veto by the President while the Secretary of Defense informed them that without the emergency appropriation, our boys will be left high and dry in Iraq and Afghanistan by April 15.

And the certainly can’t claim to be promoting peace in Iraq - not when anyone with half a brain knows the consequences of our withdrawal before the Iraqi government and security forces are prepared to defend the streets against the brutal thugs and terrorists who bedevil the country today. The only “peace” achieved at that point will be the peace of the grave - both for Iraq and the small chance that democracy can still be achieved in that bloody, tragic country.

So if not for principle, or the troops, or for whatever “peace” means, we are left with the only rational reason for passing these bills - a desire to have the United States of America defeated on the field of battle.

We “need to be taught a lesson in humility” or we have to lose in order to show the American people what an incompetent boob is the President of the United States. Or, we must fail because success will only embolden the “neocons” in their mad desire to take over the world by military force.

And to those who say we are already “defeated” or that victory and defeat have no meaning in our present circumstances, you might want to answer the question of why the Democrats are so desperate to avoid the stigma of an Iraqi defeat that they openly talk of wishing to place the blame for our failure on the shoulders of George Bush? They have no illusions whatsoever about the blame game. They are playing it to the hilt. And they wish to cement that defeat by pulling out, guaranteeing that they will have a ready made issue to run on in 2008.

This from the left wing MyDD:

[Hillary] Clinton’s desire to remain in Iraq will continue the war in Iraq - the Iraqi people want the US out, and if it does not leave, many of them will keep fighting (wouldn’t you, if the situation was reversed?) She is for the war in Iraq - she voted for it, she has always refused to say she was wrong for doing so, and she would keep US troops in Iraq if elected. Her use of al-Qa’eda to justify keeping troops in Iraq is nothing more than a cynical play on the American public’s paranoia about al-Qa’eda, not a sincere strategy to defeat al-Qa’eda (or if it is, she’s beyond stupid, something I don’t believe.)

Hillary’s a pro-war candidate. And if Democrats nominate her, they will be nominating a pro-war candidate. And then the war will be a fully American war, not just a Republican one.

What can you say about such jaw dropping cynicism? Thomas Sowell tries gamely to define it:

If the war in Iraq is such an unnecessary and futile expenditure of blood and treasure as Pelosi et al. have been saying, why not put an end to it?

But to do that would mean taking responsibility for the consequences — and those consequences would be disastrous and lasting. They would probably still be lasting when the 2008 elections come around.

The Democrats cannot risk that. They have taken over Congress by a very clever and very disciplined strategy of constantly criticizing the Republicans, without taking the risk of presenting an alternative for whose results they can be held responsible.

There is no sign that they want to change that politically winning strategy now. Their non-binding resolutions against the war are a perfect expression of that strategy.

These resolutions put them on record as being against the war without taking the responsibility for ending it.

Indeed, that is the nub of the matter. They wish defeat in Iraq without making it appear that their actions in Congress had anything to do with it. This political sleight of hand would be entertaining if not for the stakes involved.

If the Democrats were to stand on principle, they would embrace measures to defund the troops, to “stop the slaughter” as they are so fond of opining everywhere someone sticks a microphone in their face. But then their strategy for losing would be too transparent and the American people would rightly punish them in 2008. Better to use stealth and sneak around in dark corners offering goodies to wavering members than stand up and be counted when destiny and history tap you on the shoulder.

The Republicans are in disarray. The White House has mounting problems defending itself against ravenous Congressional Committees who will investigate not only what needs to be investigated but also conduct detours into partisan witch hunts that serve no purpose except to skewer their political opponents. And the American people, fed a daily diet of incomplete, non-contextualized news from Iraq from a biased media are sick to death of it all and wish there was some way to gain a victory while bringing our troops home as soon as possible.

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and the money is running out. Perhaps the Democrats can drop their posing and posturing long enough to pass a bill the President can sign.

There’s some wishful thinking for you.

The Senate today rejected an amendment that would have stripped all mention of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq in the emergency funding bill.

The 50-48 vote defeating an amendment by Thad Cochrane of Mississippi was notable if only because it shows how confused the situation in the Senate is. The measure would require our troops start leaving in 120 days but not lay down a specific timetable for the withdrawal, using March 31, 2008 as a non binding date for our bug out to be complete.

The vote came after the White House reiterated President Bush’s threat to veto any bill that sets deadlines for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

In intensive floor debate before the vote, supporters of the amendment argued that including a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq — even though it is put forth in the Senate bill as a nonbinding “goal” — would hand victory to America’s enemies, while opponents of it said it was time to stop giving President Bush a “blank check” to continue a failed war policy.

Also, the benchmarks that would measure progress by the Iraqi government are also non binding which raises the question of why the hell add them in the first place.

The bill is at odds with the House version that sets actual binding dates for our withdrawal tied to specific benchmarks. But chances are, a House-Senate conference will come up with language that makes either the start or ending of our withdrawal a requirement for the funds to be disbursed with the benchmarks either gone or non binding.

Senator McCain cut short some campaign appearances to show up in the floor of the Senate and give a pretty stirring speech:

In debate on the Senate floor, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) argued strongly against setting a timetable for troop withdrawal, saying a new strategy to secure Baghdad through a “surge” of U.S. combat troops is “succeeding.” He told the Senate, “What we must not do is to give up just at the moment we’re starting to turn things around in Iraq.”

Setting a timetable “risks a catastrophe for American national security interests,” said McCain, who canceled a series of fundraisers in Florida for his presidential campaign to return to Washington for today’s expected close vote.

“This legislation is a plan for failure,” McCain said of the underlying bill. “It demonstrates to the [Iraqi] government that they cannot rely on us. It tells the terrorists that they, not we, will prevail.”

A certain Bush veto will dump the problem right back into the laps of Reid and Pelosi at which point they will have a serious decision to make. Even though the American people support their idea of a timetable for withdrawal, the troops in the field only have enough funding through April 15th. After that, things start to get dicey for the troops and pressure will mount on the Democrats to give in to Bush in order to fund the troops. Do they dare play chicken with the Commander in Chief by refusing to pass a bill he can sign?

A better question might be can Bush work with Congressional Democrats to come up with language that both sides can agree on? Is he even willing to do so?

My guess is no, we won’t see the White House compromising one inch on a binding date for starting or ending the withdrawal. And since this is the Ur issue for most Congressional Democrats, there is a very real chance that April 15th will come and go without an emergency spending bill. Both sides will then concentrate on trying to shift blame for abandoning the troops on to the other - a most unedifying spectacle to be sure not to mention an extraordinarily dangerous game considering the consequences to the troops.

The only way this can be avoided is if Bush gets to work on some of the Blue Dog Democrats, reaching out to them to address some of their concerns. Ronald Reagan was able to do this on a regular basis with the “Boll Weevils” of his time and got much of what he wanted in the way of tax and budget cuts. But Bush has demonstrated a singular inability in the past to reach across the aisle and bring along wavering Democratic moderates on any issue. But with the stakes so high, he really ought to try.

Of course, Reid and Pelosi would crack the whip if they sensed any weakening of resolve on the part of a couple of Blue Dogs. And if there was any weakening of the language regarding the timetable, chances are Pelosi would also lose the support of some of the far left who voted for the measure the first time around even though they believed it didn’t go far enough.

At this point, it is difficult to see how to resolve the differences of the two sides. In the end, the necessity of funding the troops may make all of the political maneuvering moot and the President may get most of what he wants without the binding timetables but with benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet. That’s the best the Democrats could hope for at this point.

Word that the Attorney General of the United States has been fibbing about his involvement in the firing of the 8 US Attorneys has, for some reason, shocked absolutely no one.

Maybe we should take that as a sign that this incompetent boob should have been fired a week ago:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales met with senior aides on Nov. 27 to review a plan to fire a group of U.S. attorneys, according to documents released last night, a disclosure that contradicts Gonzales’s previous statement that he was not involved in “any discussions” about the dismissals.

Justice Department officials also announced last night that the department’s inspector general and its Office of Professional Responsibility have launched a joint investigation into the firings, including an examination of whether any of the removals were improper and whether any Justice officials misled Congress about them.

The hour-long November meeting in the attorney general’s conference room included Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty and four other senior Justice officials, including the Gonzales aide who coordinated the firings, then-Chief of Staff D. Kyle Sampson, records show.

Ed Morrissey points us to this blurb by Jonah Goldberg at the Corner that pretty much sums up the situation:

Okay, he may simply have been deeply, deeply, confused, out of touch and unprepared to give a press conference which was supposed to put an end to the “scandal” and instead poured gasoline on it at a time when his boss, the President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief, had vastly more important things to deal with. Maybe, just maybe, a good “CEO” would have asked his staff, “Hey, before I unequivocally tell the world I was out of the loop, let’s double check and make sure I wasn’t in the loop. Okay?”

I will brook no excuses by commenters that Gonzalez “misspoke,” or “forgot,” or “got a note from his mother” that gave him permission to lie, or other excuses from the ever dwindling number of Bush diehards who visit this site . He is the frickin’ Attorney General of the United States fer crissakes! If there is anybody in government who needs to tell the truth, it is the guy responsible for enforcing the laws of land.

When I wrote last week that this was a non scandal, I was absolutely correct. The problem was that I didn’t bank on the Attorney General turning this into a full fledged Washington feeding frenzy by thinking he could get away with telling the press, the American people, and Congress one thing while knowing full well the truth lay exactly in the opposite direction.

Now firing the bastard won’t do anything to slake the thirst of the scandal mongers for blood. All it will do is make Bush look even weaker when he has to throw his AG to the dogs after promising to stand by him. And with a couple of Congressional Committees using electron microscopes to go over the documentation here, you can be sure they’ll find something else newsworthy every single day that will embarrass the Administration and make them look even worse - if that’s possible.

Word that the IG will be looking into this is actually the best news to come out of the entire affair. I’m sure he’ll raise questions about the propriety of the firings but I sincerely doubt he’ll find anything actionable. That won’t stop Congressional Democrats from going after Miers and Rove -a constitutional battle royale that’s shaping up to be the political entertainment of the spring.

I’m 100% with Patterico here:

These attorneys’ attitudes towards their clients can be summed up as follows: I’d like to defend you, but you’re making it very difficult for me.

But they’re making it really, really hard for me to do so.

Damn near impossible now. This news today has even had them surrendering the high ground on the issue of executive privilege. Not that Rove or Miers has much to worry about. The netnuts are in their anti-Rovian dream state again, believing like Dorothy that if they click their heels together three times wearing the magic shoes and wish hard enough, Evil Karl will exit the White House in chains. This, too, will make for some great springtime entertainment. Nothing like watching the left have their heads explode when once again, Evil Karl escapes their clutches.